http://www.nbcsports.com/blueandgold/1574168/detail.html

I think one of the two underclassman will get the job

 

http://www.leaguelineup.com/welcome.asp?sid=674703465&url=thegipper

Im not rootin for anyone, but with the ball control offense we will most likely run next year, Sharpley seems to be the guy because he ran the offense the best. Im not counting anyone out.

Seems to me that whomever gets the nod...it will be after alot of thought and observation. I just do not see Coach Weis annointing anyone just to appease the critics? We will be in great hands.

so far i think sharpley has a slight edge as we will be a running team a majority of the time , if he can't pass then i see jones over JC. go irish ,use those horses to run the ball.

I've been saying Sharpley is the dark horse for awhile now and I'm sticking to that. He poses the least risk for early in the season.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again, to me CW values ACCURACY from his QB's above all else. and if we look at that aspect of qb play only, it's CLEAR that clausen is the "one" there. CW said it himself that clausen throws the best.

 

i think CW is throwing a bit of a smokescreen up here to keep GT off-balance for as long as possible as to who the starter is going to be and to "protect" a freshman from feeling the "heat" any longer that he has to.

 

there's no way anyone can convince me it won't be clausen when the season starts.

 

oh and domer, CW has shown that he is completey unafraid of "risk" during his brief tenure so far. so i don't think he would just go to sharpley because he poses the "least risk." CW factors in the "reward" part equally as much.

 

btw, i know this is all speculation, etc. so no one has to point that out to us.

I think Sharpley still starts GT.

 

I think you'll want someone with best command of the operation on first snap... to keep the team calm, to help the team build confidence.

 

If things are helter skelter, and we're losing momentum.. then I can definitely see Jones or Clausen coming in. Jones moreso since I think he seems to have the confidence and trust of a lot of his teammates.

BI...good points. However I maintain that risk IS a big factor. CW is a manager. Managers lead, adapt, motivate, and assess an overall situation. He is smart enough to know that if he expects to do well for the season as a whole, he needs to limit risk in the beginning. I think we can all agree that if we were to start the season 0-3 (while not popular, that is not out of the realm of possibilities realistically speaking), we certainly would have the deck stacked against us to win against USC, UCLA, and BC. So to limit risk in the early part of the season is a good managerial move.

 

Remember when CW first came here and he commented on how much he dumbed up the offense for BQ to absorb it. That is risk assessment and, to me, one of the things that proves CW to be an effective manager.

 

Good conversation though...thanks.

well, domer, i would say going for on 4th down in your own territory against the #1 team in the country takes a lot of risk.

 

i dunno, i just think CW weighs risk AND reward. now, someone could say that that is why DD is still in the conversation for starting qb and i would agree with that because DD's accuracy, from all accounts, has been poor.

 

and i'm not sure about the "dumbed down" thing for BQ, as i just read an article in the NYT last week that said CW was amazed at how much quinn could handle and that CW just kept giving him more and more.

 

look, can i say that your assesment is wrong? hell, no. you make damn fine points. but i see CW as wayyyy more of a risk-taker than almost any coach in recent memory and i see him ultimately going with the kid who can make all the throws. and that kid is clausen.

 

 

btw, this kind of converstation, while actually quite pointelss (as none of really know what CW's gonna do ), it sure does pass the time nicely for me!

Maybe its just me, I tend to simplify things as much as possible, but I don't see where people get the "stability" of Sharpley. Don't get me wrong, I like the kid and if CW gives him the nod, he'll be my favorite QB in the country.

What we really have is three quarterbacks with no experience. Sharpley's mop up duty and limited snaps in practice, don't add up to much experience in my book and hasn't faced much gameday pressure. Sharpley is the oldest and CW says runs the offense the best, JC is the best thrower and DJ is the best with his legs, but throwing ability is in question.

I guess I don't see the advantage of using Sharpley as a "bridge", he's just as inexperienced, as far as chrunch time in games, as the other two. If I were to pick a starter for the GT game, it would be JC - I'm sure he knows how to hand the ball off. CW will manage the game from the sidelines, and if JC has learned the offense, whats the disadvantage. We are going to have to throw the ball to win, no more than 15 or 20 times, but we have to be successful when we do throw it, and if JC is the most accurate thrower, he gets my nod. If we don't have some success throwing the ball, we are in big trouble.

One thing I do hope is that CW decides on a QB ASAP, even if he doesn't announce it. With the inexperience we have all over the offensive skill positions, we are going to have to have a QB that has gotten alot of snaps in practice with the 1st team to try and build continuity, and splitting snaps three ways, with three different skill sets, won't build a cohesive unit.

About BQ picking up the offense, we know that he got it quickly. But CW's plan was to dumb it up. As far as his plan this year...he's said they want to run a lot. Less risky with a new QB wouldn't you think? Definitely a good way to pass the time BI!

I recall the same thing domer. Charlie intended to install it slowly not only for Quinn but for the rest of the team. He was just impressed with how quickly Quinn absorbed what he was given.

 

With regard to CW being a risk taker, I would say he is more of a risk taker then most. What we don't know is why those risks were taken. Based on opponents, he may have felt he needed to take shots when he got them and that he had to be aggressive because our defensive couldn't keep us in games. It will be interesting to see if his aggressiveness drops a bit when the D improves. I still think he will take chances but maybe not to the degree he has in the past.

Well,,,

 

Here's my own personal opinion. CW has never worked with a "Tony Rice" type of QB and has gone all the way with a gunslinger. I believe he will keep it a guess or a long time. Then when everyone least expects it, comes out with JC gunslinging it like BQ his first year with CW!

 

JC is as smart as BQ, as talented (if not more) but only hasn't been pounded on for two years by college defenses like BQ. JC is also not in as good of shape as BQ but I think (with talented receivers and JC at QB) the offense won't miss a beat. I'll just miss JS badly!!

 

This is JMHO!

 

Butif this comes to fruition, please remember me!LOL!!

Think Weis is a gambler so who knows but I dont think you put your golden boy in the cross hairs until you know what you got (QB, O-line, running game, defense that keeps opponent at bay). There is very little upside b/c if things are running fine, any one of the QBs would do fine but IF NOT, you end up throwing JC under a crush of media attention unnecessarily...after all, half the country is waiting for the kid to throw an Incompletion so they can denounce him as a bust...so, I think its Sharpley...JC by Game 4

Guys...........in my first post I said that my sources said JC was in the bottom two. Then CW announces that he now has a top 3 with one left out. In the mean time a radio show says that someone who is really close to CW says JC is not the QB that they thought he was....If I was a smart guy, ( like CW is), & I didn't want everyone to jump off the bus, wouldn't I change my " 2 front runner QB's by the end of May" to make it 3 front runners so that JC would still seem to be in the mix to start? It just a thought.............but it does have a lot of merit, don't you think?